The Supreme Court docket on Thursday (August 20) reiterated {that a} income report entry neither creates nor extinguishes title to immovable property.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih heard a case wherein title rights in a joint household property have been declared extinguished due to a subsequent entry within the income data within the title of one other particular person.
The case concerned agricultural land initially held by one Bhagwansingh, who had two sons, Ramprasad and Vasudev. Following Bhagwansingh’s dying, the property devolved upon each sons and was initially recorded collectively of their names.
The appellants, who have been the authorized heirs of Ramprasad, later instituted proceedings in search of declaration of co-ownership, partition and separate possession after the income data got here to mirror the property solely within the names of Vasudev and his son.
The respondents contended that Ramprasad had voluntarily relinquished his curiosity via an affidavit, an announcement earlier than the Naib Tehsildar and a consent letter, marked as Ex.D5.
The trial courtroom and the primary appellate courtroom rejected the defence and decreed the swimsuit in favour of the appellants.
In a second enchantment, the Madhya Pradesh Excessive Court docket overturned the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court docket and the trial courtroom, following which an enchantment was filed earlier than the Supreme Court docket by the authorized heirs of Ramprasad.
Setting apart the Excessive Court docket’s determination, the judgment authored by Justice Masih stated that an entry in favour of one other particular person wouldn’t quantity to voluntary abandonment of the Appellants’ title rights, claiming via Ramprasad, within the joint property.
“A proper in immovable property can’t be handled as having been voluntarily deserted merely as a result of a income entry subsequently seems in favour of one other particular person, and the underlying transaction by which title is alleged to have been surrendered should independently be established by the social gathering relying upon it.”, the Court docket noticed.
Furthermore, the Respondents weren’t in a position to set up the execution of the relinquishment deed by the Appellant, nor any impartial witness was introduced to show that Ramprasad relinquished his title, the Court docket stated. Furthermore, the Court docket stated that the Excessive Court docket erred in relying upon the testimony of a witness, whose testimony was not related because it was relating to a unique transaction.
“The respondents…didn’t in any other case set up the existence of any registered deed of relinquishment, and the fabric relied upon didn’t, to the usual required in a civil continuing, set up that Ramprasad had legally divested himself of his curiosity within the swimsuit property.”, the Court docket stated.
“Respondents No. 1 and a pair of haven’t produced some other doc primarily based on which the courtroom might presume that the signature on Reveals D-17 to D-21 is certainly Ramprasad’s. No different doc has been produced by respondents No. 1 and a pair of bearing Ramprasad’s signature. Even whether it is assumed that the stated signatures are Ramprasad’s, respondents No. 1 and a pair of haven’t produced any impartial witness who was current on the time of execution of the stated exhibit and Ex. D-5. Respondents No. 1 and a pair of have didn’t make clear below what circumstances the entries within the title of respondent no. 2 have been made on part of the disputed land in 1980- 1981.”, the Court docket added.
Income entry is just not presumption of title
The Court docket stated {that a} mere income entry is just not a presumption of title, however a rebuttable presumption. The truth that the income data subsequently mirrored the property in one other particular person’s title couldn’t, with out proof of the underlying transaction, set up that the unique co-owner had relinquished his share, the Court docket stated.
“The order of the Naib Tehsildar might regulate the income report, nevertheless it can’t, merely by recording one particular person’s title rather than one other, function as a conveyance or a relinquishment of proprietary rights, and the civil courtroom stays totally competent to find out the underlying title, which the income entry follows fairly than creates. The statutory presumption of correctness attaching to a income entry below Part 117 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Income Code 1959 is a rebuttable evidentiary presumption and never a presumption of title, and it should be weighed together with the remainder of the proof, which the primary appellate courtroom did, discovering it displaced for the precise causes recorded above. For these causes the Excessive Court docket fell into error in holding that Ex.D5, whether or not taken alone or along with the income proceedings below Ex.D22, established that Ramprasad had relinquished his proprietary curiosity within the swimsuit property.”, the Court docket noticed.
Accordingly, the Court docket allowed the enchantment, restoring the trial courtroom’s decree recognizing the appellants’ co-ownership rights and directed that their shares be labored out via lawful partition.
Trigger Title: JAMNABAI AND OTHERS VERSUS VASUDEV AND OTHERS
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 843
Click here to download judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. Mr. Yashwardhan Rai, Adv. Mr. Vijant, Adv. Mr. Aayushmaan Vatsyayana, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rudraditya Khare, D.A.G.Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, AOR Ms. Deeplaxmi S Matwankar, Adv. Ms. Manreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Amit Gurnani, Adv. Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, AOR Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Surjeet Singh GA, Adv. Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv.
